S.W. posted this on FB:
Raising taxes on unemployed people is like trying to save gas by always driving downhill. Sooner or later you are gonna hit the bottom and it's gonna be a long push back up.
K.S.: what they should be doing is subsidizing jobs, but those subsidies keep getting voted down... Instead, we get tax breaks on job creators who either don't create jobs, or create low-wage PT jobs.
R.E.W.: Perhaps allowing tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas is not as good idea as it sounds?
S.W.: When I was at the bank they moved 5,000 jobs to south Texas and took advantage of the "Guest Worker" programs. We all lost our jobs.
Me: I hope jobs subsidies continue to be voted down. Government is the cause of the situation we are in.
R.W.: Humm lets see once? you work and earn unemployement for when you are laidoff and have to pay taxes on those benefits and also those benefits only last so long,,,,But you recive welfare and dont pay one red cent but get to be on evrey FREE program on the planet and it lasts a life time ?????? and dont do anything for those benefits. Things that make us go HUMMMMMM
R.E.W.: R.W., where do you get lifetime welfare? Not in the USA. There was a five-year limit put on it under Clinton. So ... will you change your mind on that subject?
R.E.W.: Rich, why do you say "Government is the cause ..." ? Is this a religious belief you have, or do you have some factual basis for blaming government for the export of 50,000 factories (not just jobs, but FACTORIES) out of the USA?
Me: R.E.W., why don't you rephrase your question, this time without a condescending comment?
R.E.W.: Rich - don't whine. Answer the question, or just concede you have a religious belief here: that you have no factual basis, it's just something you believe.
Me: we can be respectful and exchange ideas, or you can be an asshole. You choose.
R.E.W.: Rich, why you think "religious belief" is disrespectful I don't know, but since you've resorted to potty words, I'll play along: Do you have some factual basis for blaming government for the export of 50,000 factories (not jobs but FACTORIES) out of the USA? (Or is it the request for facts that make me an "asshole" LOL?)
Me: Thank you sir. I did not make any statement about the exportation of 50,000 factories. I did comment that job subsidies, like so many government intervention into the private sector, cause the very problems they purport to solve.
R.E.W.: Rich, So what you're saying is that "the problem we are in" is the result of job subsidies - that the shortage of good-paying jobs in America is because government subsidizes good-paying jobs? Am I correctly characterizing your statement? Because, sir, an extraordinary statement like that requires extraordinary proof; do you have any facts to support the idea that the export of 50,000 factories is a smaller factor than any government subsidy of the jobs in those factory? I apologize if asking for facts appears condescending, but it's a habit.
R.E.W.: Here, for example, is a government action that would have ended government support for exporting jobs. Can we agree that it would be a good idea for government to stop encouraging the export of jobs: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239029-republicans-blocked-the-democrats-insourcing-bill
"Senate Republicans blocked the Democrats’ ‘insourcing’ bill Thursday — creating a trend of failure for the week. The Bring Jobs Home Act would have ended tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas and given a tax incentive to companies bringing jobs back to the United States..."
R.E.W.: Or perhaps we can agree that when Pete Singer, owner of Delphi (formerly Delco Auto Parts), held GM hostage, demanding billions of taxpayer dollars or he'd collapse the auto industry by shutting down the manufacture of steering collumns, well it was a bad thing for government to surrender to the blackmail, especially since the blackmailer then used the money to export most of Delphi's jobs to China ... but not giving in to the blackmail would have been bad too. Government is not the problem; government is just a tool; the question is who is using the government for what purpose: http://truth-out.org/news/item/12210-greg-palast-mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
Me: What I am saying is the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector, frequently exacerbating the problems it sets out to solve. Regarding your first link, I'm sure tinkering with the tax code seems like a solution, that is, if one could say that fixing a previous bad government intervention with yet another is a solution, but I'm at loss to explain how a tax credit like this will do what is claimed. Regarding your second link, I quote: "Singer’s fund investors scored a gain of $904 million, all courtesy of the US taxpayer." Does this sound like a government intervention solved a problem, or created one?
Let me put it to you. Can you name one government social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?
Me: Truth-out? I guess I should quote idiot hannity or someone.
R.E.W.: Rich, - are you saying that the facts I outlined about Pete Singer's Delphi Deal are not true, just because the easier source to cite is truth-out ?
R.E.W.: when you state "I'm at loss to explain how a tax credit like this will do what is claimed" are you not ignoring the fact that the tax credit ALREADY EXISTS ... it just works to help EXPORT JOBS? Do you want to say "Stop the tax credit for exports, and don't implement a credit for imports"?
R.E.W.: "Can you name one government social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?" places a silly condition on program: that they permanently end continuing problems. You might as well say that glasses don't correct vision because you still need to wear them; some things, like power supplies, fire protection and health care, are ongoing issues and require ongoing solutions. (Although it is true that many anti-poverty and education programs have reduced the problems they attacked; I know several people personally who used government resources such as education to get their way into private sector jobs ... don't you?) Turn the question around: Can you name one private sector social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?
R.E.W.: Finally, it might as well be stated that "... the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector" is simply false. No evidence is provided for that statement, and in fact the very terms of the statement are not defined, e.g. "the problems we have". The one example we discuss (Delphi) are an example of the private sector driving itself to ruin, so that Pete Singer could take control, and then extort billions because otherwise his control of the production of steering columns would enable him to destroy the entire auto industry. That is not government's fault; you may disagree with the government decision to give in to the economic terrorist but you can't blame government for the terrorist's act.
Me: *Sigh* "The facts I outlined" is an a prioi assumption of veracity which has yet to be established. Considering the far left source, I justifiably doubt their presentation is without bias.
Yes, yes, yes. The tax credit exists. Please note that I did not say that it didn't. If you think that simply because of a tax credit companies move their businesses out of country, you are naive. Similarly, if you think a company will move its operations back simply because the tax credit is modified, you simply don't understand how business works.
Me: So, I am assuming you concede that government does not solve social problems. Um, power supplies, fire protection, and health care are not social problems. But I think you knew that.
Me: The private sector does not create or implement social programs. It is not an arm of government. Again, you appear to not to understand how the private sector works.
Me: "... the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector" is an opinion, and cannot be false. An opinion is not a statement of fact. Since you have admitted that you don't know what I'm referring to, you cannot know if my claim is without merit.
R.E.W.: Not interested in discussing with someone who says facts don't matter because he's just expressing an opinion, but grateful that my first point was validated: it's a belief proof against fact, aka religion.
Me: Yeah, that's exactly what I said: Facts don't matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment